Remember Timothy The Most Smiling Cardinal Dolan’s delighted welcoming to Obama after Obama had treated Dolan and the Catholic Church the way a mafioso treats a business he is shaking down?

By inviting Obama to the Al Smith Dinner and yukking it up with him, Dolan, the leader of the Catholic flock, destroyed any basis the flock had to oppose Obama’s personal betrayal of Dolan and his oppression of the Church.

And now Romney, by meeting with Obama in the Oval Office and politely shaking his hand,

destroys any basis for Romney’s supporters to object to Obama’s campaign of lies against Romney. Romney is saying that Obama’s ads that portrayed Romney as an engaging in a “war against women” and as monster and killer of grandmothers were ok by him. He’s saying that Obama’s illegal passage of Obamacare is ok by him. He’s saying that the contraceptive mandate is ok by him. He’s saying that Obama’s toppling of constitutional limits on the power of government is ok by him.

Some readers will naturally retort, “Do you expect the loser not to be polite and gracious to the victor?” And my answer is: Of course I would expect the loser to be polite and gracious to the victor—if he accepted what the victor is doing to America. If he did not accept it, if he saw it as what it really is, the destruction of America as a constitutional republic, then he would not be polite and gracious.

- end of initial entry -

December 1

BLS writes:

I see your point regarding graciousness in losing to a tolerable opponent. But, it is also basic politics and maneuvering. I do not have an argument for Cardinal Dolan, except that I would expect the two candidates to attend the traditional dinner. [LA replies: Wrong. In 1996 Clinton, and therefore Dole, were not invited.] Romney shook Obama’s hand. He was invited to the White House. What was he supposed to do? It was a gracious (and political) move by Obama. [LA replies: How naïve to praise Obama for his “graciousness.” After Obama had spent months smearing the man as a monster and then defeating him with those smears, he invites the vanquished to the White House so that the vanquished can accept his defeat and put his seal of approval on Obama’s destruction of his character. The invitation was not gracious. It was the act of a victorious mob chieftain demonstrating his victory.] Yet, it was expected. I cannot fault either of them for this small moment.

Would Romney be a hero if he rejected the invitation? He would have appeared small and bitter. On the other side, he would only appear small and bitter to people that voted for Obama. All these moves are calculated.

If we want civilized man to exist, then we must act civilized. That means we accept our loss and reality.

Romney could have denied the invitation, or accepted and refused to shake hands. I think that is more awkward. As you say, it is their country now. I would have loved a headline that Romney rejected an invitation from the White House, but I suspect I am in the minority. We expect our leaders to act civilized, even when it is not in their best interests. It is common courtesy, is it not?

LA replies:

Obviously I’m not saying that Romney should have visited Obama but not shaken hands with him. How ridiculous to suppose that I am saying that.

If I had been in Romney’s shoes, I would not have accepted the invitation. The invitation, and the declining of the invitation, would have been private. So it would not have been a publicly heroic gesture nor a publicly rude gesture. I simply would not have paid a social visit to Obama.

John Adams decamped from Washington, D.C. before the inauguration of Jefferson so as to avoid any contact with him.

You write:

“If we want civilized man to exist, then we must act civilized.”

This is the classic voice of the Republican or mainstream conservative who oh-so-nicely and oh-so-politely and in such a civilized manner hands his civilization over to its destroyer, and then, to seal the deal, shakes his hand.